NationStates Jolt Archive

OK, now if Saddam did have WMDs, and if he did destroy them and if he had provided documentation of having destroyed them, we would not have had our pretence, or reason, if you prefer, for invading Iraq. Right?

Now, a shitload of unguarded Iraqi explosives have gone missing, and after a day or of saying that they may have been moved before we got there, in the face of an imbeds film disproving that, now the story is this:

"We may have destroyed them... we're just not sure."

Isn't it great that the Bush administration doesn't have the same standards to live up to as they put on the rest of the world?

So there were no WMD but now WMD were stolen? It's not there, is was there, which is it?

No, America doesn't HAVE to do anything because we have something called SUPER POWER STATUS and until someone else gets that we can do whatever we feel like. GOD BLESS AMERICA

So there were no WMD but now WMD were stolen? It's not there, is was there, which is it?
*smack* feel any smarter yet?

no wmd were stolen. every country in the freaking world has explosives like those that went missing. they arent wmd but they sure are blowing up our soldiers in iraq every day.

So there were no WMD but now WMD were stolen? It's not there, is was there, which is it?

Not WMDs, just high explosives. But you'd think we'd keep track of any weapons we destroy?

OF COURSE WE DO! Bush just wants to offer up whatever "believable" excuses he can for as long as it takes... 3 1/2 more days...

What do you think 250 billion tons of explosives is??

Yeah thats pretty good, than again he cant think right, he used to be an alcoholic and snorted cocaine

What do you think 250 billion tons of explosives is??

377 tons, not billions, not 250.

What do you think 250 billion tons of explosives is??

OK, so suppose 250G tons or 377 tons or whatever does count as WMDs. So what the admin is saying today is "we found WMDs a year ago, and checked them out, and drove out without leaving guards. And now they're gone, but hey! We might have destroyed those WMDs, but we're not sure because we didn't make any records of destroying them.

Can you say "IN-COMP-I-TENT"? Can you say "OR DE-CEIT-FUL"? :D Good! I thought you could! :D

The first atomic bomb released an explosion equivalent to only 25,000 pounds of TNT. It killed between 80,000 to 140,000 people, while injuring 100,000 more very seriously. But you think that this, excuse me, "377" tons of explosives isn't in the same category as WMDS?

Actually it's spelt "IN-COMP-E-TENT"? But I digress...
What I particularly found ironic was Bush's comments:
But in his first comments about the missing explosives, Mr Bush said in Pennsylvania that Mr Kerry had jumped to conclusions for political reasons.
...
"A political candidate who jumps to conclusions without knowing the facts is not a person you want as your commander-in-chief," he added.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3957653.stm

Yep. Can't have a Politician making any wild claims ('can't wait until the smoking gun is a mushroom cloud', anyone?) now can we? Apparently, we need to wait until all the facts are in before we can make a decision.

The first atomic bomb released an explosion equivalent to only 25,000 pounds of TNT. It killed between 80,000 to 140,000 people, while injuring 100,000 more very seriously. But you think that this, excuse me, "377" tons of explosives isn't in the same category as WMDS?

OK, so it is WMDs.

This means that we found WMDs a year ago. And now they are missing, having been left unguarded. Yesterday the admin was saying they were moved before we got there, even as film from an imbed showed them there when we got there. Now they are missing. We "MIGHT HAVE" destroyed them (without leaving Iraq one big crater). But we're just not sure. And we (the PEOPLE! remember us?) didn't hear anything about it until a few days ago, even though they were WMDs, our whole excuse for going.

And your response is "well which is it, Democrats?"??? Can you say "I AM A TOOL"? :D

The first atomic bomb released an explosion equivalent to only 25,000 pounds of TNT. It killed between 80,000 to 140,000 people, while injuring 100,000 more very seriously. But you think that this, excuse me, "377" tons of explosives isn't in the same category as WMDS?
Are we still on this?
There's a difference between one explosive that is the equivalent of 25 000 pounds of TNT and 377 tonnes worth of explosives. Note the plural (explosives)? Gathering a lot together doesn't turn it into a WMD, regardless of the destructive power. A truck load of Fertiliser or a 747 can become as destructive as a bomb, but it doesn't mean it's a WMD, now does it?

Speaking of great jokes, I particularly loved this one:
http://www.ucomics.com/tomthedancingbug/2004/10/30/

I said this before to one liberal who poses everything in the form of a question now, and before he said MOABs and napalm counted as WMDs. :rolleyes: WMDs are chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. Not explosives or incendiaries, or how big they are, the definition is NBC weapons.

gee if explosives counted as wmds and if we had to invade every country that has both oil and explosives, we could have saved alot of trouble and invaded MEXICO instead. now there's a country worth having!

The first atomic bomb released an explosion equivalent to only 25,000 pounds of TNT. It killed between 80,000 to 140,000 people, while injuring 100,000 more very seriously. But you think that this, excuse me, "377" tons of explosives isn't in the same category as WMDS?


But if it is the quantity of explosives is what makes a WMD why do we not invade demolition companies because surely they have dangerous amounts of WMD. Conventional explosives are NOT WMD. WMD cover biological/chemical/nuclear weapons.

gee if explosives counted as wmds and if we had to invade every country that has both oil and explosives, we could have saved alot of trouble and invaded MEXICO instead. now there's a country worth having!
Any country that gave the World Salma Hayek is worth having!
Uhh....Salma Hayek <drools like Homer thinking of donuts>

Any country that gave the World Salma Hayek is worth having!
Uhh....Salma Hayek <drools like Homer thinking of donuts>
im a straight woman and *I* find salma sexy. i dont know how men can keep their composure in her presense

gee if explosives counted as wmds and if we had to invade every country that has both oil and explosives, we could have saved alot of trouble and invaded MEXICO instead. now there's a country worth having!

Canada would be even ezier......and we already get most of our oil from there and venezuela

gee if explosives counted as wmds and if we had to invade every country that has both oil and explosives, we could have saved alot of trouble and invaded MEXICO instead. now there's a country worth having!

Canada would be even ezier......and we already get most of our oil from there and venezuela
i dont know that canada would be an easy win but look at what you GET if you win it.

id just be happy if they would keep their "alberta clippers" to themselves

No, America doesn't HAVE to do anything because we have something called SUPER POWER STATUS and until someone else gets that we can do whatever we feel like. GOD BLESS AMERICA :rolleyes: No wonder half the world hates us.

To all the terrorist's out there, this jerk doesn't speak for all of us. Please be selective about who's head you chop off.

:rolleyes: No wonder half the world hates us.

To all the terrorist's out there, this jerk doesn't speak for all of us. Please be selective about who's head you chop off.

Terrorist-ass kissing FRENCHMAN!!! :mad: